[Permagrin]

Hm.  I wanted a driving wheel for both my PS3 and my PC.  Haven't gotten around to it yet though, the nice ones are pretty expensive.
 
My PC is decent though, but probably can't play it well at full resolution and specced up all the way.

I think there are wheels that are platform-independent but can't recall. It's really not that big of a deal but it really adds to the experience.

It looks really nice at 720p anyway.

 

[MorbidToaster]

I believe the higher end Logtiech wheels are PC and PS3 compatible. 
 
One thing to remember though, even if you can't run it at max resolution and max settings, bump down the resolution to 720 and max everything. You get the resolution of a PS3, and the look of a PC. 
 
Also, most console developed games (ala. Dirt 3) are later ported to PC, so the native resolution is 720 anyway. Upscaling usually taxes a system hard and doesn't make it that much better. The thing that really makes PC look better over consoles most of the time is all the fun stuff like lighting and environment effects.
 
Quote:

Quote:

Hm.  I wanted a driving wheel for both my PS3 and my PC.  Haven't gotten around to it yet though, the nice ones are pretty expensive.
 
My PC is decent though, but probably can't play it well at full resolution and specced up all the way.

I think there are wheels that are platform-independent but can't recall. It's really not that big of a deal but it really adds to the experience.

It looks really nice at 720p anyway.

 
 

 

[DaBomb77766]

Quote:

I believe the higher end Logtiech wheels are PC and PS3 compatible. 
 
One thing to remember though, even if you can't run it at max resolution and max settings, bump down the resolution to 720 and max everything. You get the resolution of a PS3, and the look of a PC. 
 
Also, most console developed games (ala. Dirt 3) are later ported to PC, so the native resolution is 720 anyway. Upscaling usually taxes a system hard and doesn't make it that much better. The thing that really makes PC look better over consoles most of the time is all the fun stuff like lighting and environment effects.
 


 
 

Yup, the G37 is compatible with PS3 and PC but it's quite expensive.
 
And yeah, that's what I usually do, especially with racing games...they need a high framerate otherwise they're rather hard to play.  Dirt 3, though, I think was probably developed with PC in mind too, since it's DX11 compatible and Dirt 2, at any rate, had a few cool effects in the PC version the consoles didn't have (like heat distortion effects from the engines and such, and I think better environment deformation).

 

[marvin]

     Quote:

Also, most console developed games (ala. Dirt 3) are later ported to PC, so the native resolution is 720 anyway. Upscaling usually taxes a system hard and doesn't make it that much better. The thing that really makes PC look better over consoles most of the time is all the fun stuff like lighting and environment effects.

 
 
Technically incorrect. The majority of console ported PC games aren't forced to natively render at 720p. They render at whatever resolution you select and any rescaling done post rendering is pretty much free thanks to hardware scalers. The increase in rendered resolution and perceived resolution (through more/better AA) are a couple of the biggest benefits of PC gaming. It's a bit of a personal preference though. I usually drop bells and whistles before I drop resolution to avoid the fuzziness incurred by rescaling.
 
For that matter, many AAA console games (particularly TPS/FPS) aren't even rendered at 720p. The usual trick there is to render at sub HD resolutions to achieve an acceptable framerate and use a hardware scaler to upscale to HD resolutions.

 

[MaZa]

I am playing Witcher 2 at the moment, and I am having bit mixed feelings. The game has been great so far, but some changes have been quite dissapointing. First, where the hell is Group Style!? Trying to dispatch a group of Nekkers or Drowners is frustrating as hell! You try to pick them up one by one, but at the same time they rape your arse from all directions! Even though you keep moving you are still surrounded in a second. Despite leveling up, and even trying easy difficulty I always get a feeling like I barely make it out alive. Geralt, a feared monsterslayer my arse. Crowd controlling is desperately needed, and one cant always rely on bombs and whatever. In Witcher 1 you always had a feeling of serious ownage when dispatching weaker enemies. Sorry, I greatly prefer Witcher 1's combat system. It was really interesting in my eyes and animations were badass. Group Style was my favourite too.
 
 
Also magic seems to be nerfed out a bit. I havent leveled up my magic yet so we'll see how it changes.
 
 
Art style, I liked Witcher 1's pseudo-realism. Somewhat realistic graphics, but with very cartoonish approaches where approriate (like grannies). It was both pretty and unique! Witcher 2 instead goes for photorealism. And oh boy do they succeed! Graphics are incredibly beautiful and my GTX 460 graphics card begs for mercy! But gone is the unique charm Witcher 1 had...

 
Also why Zoltan no longer sound like Zoltan? Voice actor is same AFAIK, but he no longer does the funny stereotype-dwarf throaty voice, I could barely recognise him! I guess it went into the trash-bin with the change of artstyle. Geralt has changed a bit too. Actor is the same, but in Witcher 1 he sounded dry and sarcastic, I loved his dry humor and how he delivered it! In W2 he has some kind of Clint Eastwood-impression going on. Change isnt big but it is noticeable.
 
 
 
But still, game has been excellent and except for combat system my problems have been about cosmetics.

 

[DaBomb77766]

Quote:

     Quote:
 
 
Technically incorrect. The majority of console ported PC games aren't forced to natively render at 720p. They render at whatever resolution you select and any rescaling done post rendering is pretty much free thanks to hardware scalers. The increase in rendered resolution and perceived resolution (through more/better AA) are a couple of the biggest benefits of PC gaming. It's a bit of a personal preference though. I usually drop bells and whistles before I drop resolution to avoid the fuzziness incurred by rescaling.
 
For that matter, many AAA console games (particularly TPS/FPS) aren't even rendered at 720p. The usual trick there is to render at sub HD resolutions to achieve an acceptable framerate and use a hardware scaler to upscale to HD resolutions.

I tend to prefer just lowering the resolution.  It seems to help a lot more than just lowering one or two settings...and I can't stand to see crappy textures.
 
Also, I like how Wipeout HD handles resolution.  If the framerate slows down it automatically lowers the resolution on-the-fly.  You can't even notice it most of the time and the framerate is always silky smooth.

 

[MorbidToaster]

Also a reason I love WipeOut HD...Other than it just being plain awesome.
Quote:

I tend to prefer just lowering the resolution.  It seems to help a lot more than just lowering one or two settings...and I can't stand to see crappy textures.
 
Also, I like how Wipeout HD handles resolution.  If the framerate slows down it automatically lowers the resolution on-the-fly.  You can't even notice it most of the time and the framerate is always silky smooth.

 
 

 

[MaZa]

Quote:

     Quote:
 
 
Technically incorrect. The majority of console ported PC games aren't forced to natively render at 720p. They render at whatever resolution you select and any rescaling done post rendering is pretty much free thanks to hardware scalers. The increase in rendered resolution and perceived resolution (through more/better AA) are a couple of the biggest benefits of PC gaming. It's a bit of a personal preference though. I usually drop bells and whistles before I drop resolution to avoid the fuzziness incurred by rescaling.
 
For that matter, many AAA console games (particularly TPS/FPS) aren't even rendered at 720p. The usual trick there is to render at sub HD resolutions to achieve an acceptable framerate and use a hardware scaler to upscale to HD resolutions.

 
This is the thing I miss from CRT monitors. You could keep the bells and whistles high and just drop resolution and wouldnt need to worry about blurry scaling. Lowering resolution only reduced detail and increased jags, but screen was still sharp.

 

[MorbidToaster]

I wish CRT monitors were still practical.
 
Quote:

 
This is the thing I miss from CRT monitors. You could keep the bells and whistles high and just drop resolution and wouldnt need to worry about blurry scaling. Lowering resolution only reduced detail and increased jags, but screen was still sharp.

 
 

 

[Roller]

Quote:

I wish CRT monitors were still practical.
 

Practical in what sense? They're still some of the best devices available, and only the higher echelons of LCDs, LEDs and such can make up for having almost the same sharpness as CRTs

 

[MorbidToaster]

They're huge, heavy, and stupid expensive for larger sizes.  D:
 
Quote:

Practical in what sense? They're still some of the best devices available, and only the higher echelons of LCDs, LEDs and such can make up for having almost the same sharpness as CRTs

 
 

 

[Roller]

Quote:

They're huge, heavy, and stupid expensive for larger sizes.  D:
 

And the best image quality you can get? Oh right, I remembered that I never looked for aesthetics for any of my devices. Function over form always

 
Performance has its costs, just as on everything. Of course that I'd love to get a 24" CRT for the price of a 24" LCD, unfortunately that just won't happen

 

[MorbidToaster]

Size and weight are part of the function. IMO.
 
Especially if we're just looking at practicality. 
 
Quote:

And the best image quality you can get? Oh right, I remembered that I never looked for aesthetics for any of my devices. Function over form always

 
Performance has its costs, just as on everything. Of course that I'd love to get a 24" CRT for the price of a 24" LCD, unfortunately that just won't happen

 
 

 

[Roller]

Quote:

Size and weight are part of the function. IMO.
 
Especially if we're just looking at practicality. 
 

Fair enough. But to each their own. Gear like that is meant to be stationary, even if it can be a pain to transport.

 

[marvin]

     Quote:

Practical in what sense? They're still some of the best devices available, and only the higher echelons of LCDs, LEDs and such can make up for having almost the same sharpness as CRTs

 
The lack of retail availibility and difficulty of getting a CRT serviced makes them impractical for most. As much as I'd like a trio of GDM-FW900s for my desk, it's a bit tough to find one in good condition locally, much less three.